|
 |
The Plough
Vol. 4- No 16
Saturday 7th July 2007
E-mail newsletter of the
Irish Republican Socialist Party
1) Editorial
2) Imperialism not neutral
3) Response to Sunday Times article.
4) IRSP Statements
5) The case of Róisín McAliskey
6) An interview on the Venezuelan revolution
7) From the media
a. The fire this time
Editorial
This edition carries a statement from two members of the IRSP who
were named in an article in the Sunday Times (Irish edition) on July
1st. The statement speaks for itself and is set against a background
where two members of the IRSP in Waterford when being questioned by
the Garda Special Branch were told that they, the Special Branch saw
no difference between membership of the IRSP and the INLA. When our
comrades confirmed they were members of the IRSP they were charged
with membership of the INLA.
Part of the reason for this is the coming together of republicans in
a united march at the grave of Wolfe Tone recently. This has
obviously sent a few shock waves among all those who have endorsed
or supported the recent British imposed settlement in the North. No
doubt other republicans and socialists are looking at ways to
maximise opposition to the current capitalist set up. The main
article “Imperialism Not Neutral” states one position. We would be
glad to hear from others who might have a different position.
Repression by state forces is a cross all republicans have to bear.
If one believes that the road we travel on is the right road then
there is no need to deviate when the state puts up a bloackade.
Simply ask what would Seamus Costello, TA power or Gino Gallagher
have done and do likewise!
Imperialism not neutral
With the end of the Blair era in Britain there has been much praise
heaped on the former prime minister for the work he did in bringing
“peace” to
the North of Ireland. Much of the newspaper comments have been based
on a false premise that Britain played a role in bringing two
warring factions to the peace table.
The British state has not been and will not be neutral in this. It
has always sided with the Unionists when they try to force more
concessions from Sinn Fein. It used the RUC/PSNI in this process.
And it has always employed dirty tricks. After all it is an
imperialist power
It should be remembered that it was the police that raided Sinn
Fein's offices in 2002 and triggered the suspension of Stormont.
Three years later, the British state offered no evidence whatsoever
to back up their charges, and Dennis Donaldson, one of the accused,
admitted to being a British spy all along. Spies, double agents,
lies and murders: British rule, ie the mailed fist, has always been
present, just below the surface, during the peace process.
Nor has The Good Friday Agreement led to the community drawing
closer together. All the elected MLA’s have to register as
Protestant, Catholic or Other, and important legislation, including
the status of the union with Britain, has to command support from
each community. In other words, it entrenches the Orange veto
against a united Ireland.
All of the above is well recognised by republicans. Even some
socialists recognise it tho’ there are many in organisations that
proclaim themselves the vanguard of the working class who in
practice deny the reality of Imperialism. They never take up issues
that could in any way be seen as republican even when these issues
involve democratic rights such as the right to organise politically.
Recently the IRSP in the South of Ireland has come under attack from
political policing. False charges of INLA membership have been laid
against two IRSP members in an effort to crush the growth of our
party. False stories have been printed in the media about non
existing INLA activity in an attempt to get the INLA ceasefire
de-recognised by the Free state Government. The IRSP wait patiently
for the so called far left to jump in defence of our right to
organise. It will be a long wait.
What many on the left fail to recognize that the major contradiction
in Ireland is the continued existence of the national question. The
denial of full self-determination by Britain using the fears of the
mainly unionist people in the north as a bulwark against the
completion of the national struggle is the fundamentally main
contradiction. The ruling class in the South while aware of this
have no desire to see the issue of the national question raise its
head because what it needs most of all is stability. Stability means
profits for the capitalist class. That is why Bertie Ahearn worked
so hard with Blair to forge a settlement that would effectively
emasculate the main body fighting for the completion of the national
question, the provisional IRA. At the same time he made sure that
the so called ‘republican” credentials of Fianna Fail were to the
fore so that they could not be outflanked by Sinn Fein
(provisional). Both Ahearn and his designated successor as leader of
Fianna Fail, Brian Cowen, are perceived to be “strong” on the
republican issue.
But saying that does not change anything. We now have a settlement
of sorts in the North that has taken the pressure from the British.
The power –sharing regime of Sinn Fein and the DUP is inherently
unstable. Of course it will not collapse tomorrow for they both need
each other if they are to retain power. The vast majority of people
on the island probably think that the “settlement “ in the North
will work and that things can only get better. There is little
chance of that.
British interest rates have just gone up to 5.75% adding more to the
mortgages many have to pay out monthly. This at a time when first
time buyers have been priced out of the housing market by property
speculators buying all round them with a view to buy to let.
Traditional housing has been replace by apartment blocks
discouraging family or community life. The Northern Ireland
executive will have to make a decision in Autumn on water charges
and many householders have now difficulty making ends meet to pay
the rates which are due to continuously rise over the next six
years.
In the south of Ireland house prices fell for the third month in a
row in May. The average house price is now €304,166, 2.1% below
where it was at the start of this year. There have been eight rate
rises already since the end of 2005. The ECB base rate now stands at
4%, with most analysts predicting 4.5% at least by the end of the
year.
A recent report by University College Dublin economist Morgan Kelly
looked at house prices across the OECD since 1970 and found that the
higher house prices rise, the harder the fall. He believes that real
house prices give up 70% of what they gained in a boom during the
bust that follows. That would devastate many families
Figures from the Irish Exchequer showed that revenues from
property-related taxes such as capital gains tax and stamp duty,
were €215m below target.
More than 1,000 foreign companies since the mid 1990’s have come to
Ireland and unemployment had fallen from 15% to 4.4%.. But Unions
are demanding even higher wages, as inflation rises above 5%. In
the face of higher wages and lower wage economies in Eastern Europe,
those foreign companies could soon leave.
According to data released by the Central Statistics Office (CSO),
the number of people signing on the Live Register (The Live Register
does not measure unemployment as it includes people on benefits who
work part-time, seasonally or are casually employed.) in June rose
to its highest level in almost three years,
The CSO report also found that the standard rate of unemployment is
now at its highest point since September 2003. Employers’
representative body IBEC, said that the data showed the Irish labour
market is beginning to weaken for the first time in a number of
years. The construction sector is likely to feel the brunt of any
slowdown.
IBEC economist Fergal O'Brien said: " the scale of the June increase
confirms that the Irish labour market is experiencing some
deterioration."
For Ireland to continue to prosper under capitalism, it has to
become less reliant on consumer spending, and house price growth.
But if people have their backs to the wall, with their house prices
falling and their home loan payments rising, it’s going to be
difficult to convince them not to keep demanding higher wages.
Now there are some republicans who see the raising of class issues
such as these as a distraction, somehow taking away from the purity
of the national struggle. And on the other hand there are some who
allegedly on the left, who see the mere mention of the class
struggle as some kind of retreat into economism or the type of
labourist politics epitomised by William Walker that James Connolly
argued so strongly against.
Lest there be any misunderstanding the issue of the national
question in Ireland is at heart a class question. The division of
the country into two separate states has encouraged sectarianism,
seriously dividing the working class and allowing the continued
exploitation of all workers. When working class people get more
upset about the flying of flags, and the marching of bands and
banners past their estates than they do about the scandalous abuse
of cheap labour, the daily exploitation of both migrant and young
workers and the spread of landlordism and the selling off of state
owned resources then the reasons for partition are evident.
Since the foundation of the Northern state the republican strategy
to end partition has abysmally failed. Despite the existence of the
most effective guerrilla army in Western Europe the provisional
movement failed in their objective and had to make peace with the
enemy whilst selling that peace as a victory. The armed campaign of
the INLA hampered by internal divisions, spiked by British agents
and without a coherent clear political direction drifted into
failure despite the heroic efforts of its genuinely revolutionary
members.
Many republicans are now beginning to come to terms with the scale
of the defeat suffered by anti-imperialists. Over the past years
there has been an increase in the number of organisations that call
themselves republican. Some dialogue and debate has taken place
within and between these organisations. The IRSP has always been
willing to talk to anyone. But talking is not the same thing as
working with others in some new kind of talking shop. Too often in
the past, so-called revolutionary organisations have spent more time
examining their entrails than actually doing things to persuade the
people that their politics are right.
The way ahead lies in analysing the mistakes of the past, actively
engaging in all manifestations of discontent in society and above
all fighting to achieve leadership in the developing class conflicts
that undoubtedly lie ahead. Part of that will involve republican
socialism reaching out to progressive elements in both the catholic
and protestant working classes. If dialogue with other republicans
is along these lines then well and good. If on the other hand it is
merely an attempt to recreate the old republican model that serves
the Irish working class so badly in the past then it is doomed to
failure and the IRSP should be very clear that that is a road we
have no intention of going down. Our task is to link the fight
against the sectarian Northern statelet and the subservient Free
state to the struggle for a fundamental transformation in pay,
jobs, housing, social services, and control in the workplace,
opening the way to working class control and power. Let us build a
revolutionary party that fights for a workers' republic in the many
struggles against capitalism and British imperialism that will
emerge in the future.
(Gerry Ruddy)
Response to Sunday Times article.
In response to an article in the Sunday Times 8th July by John
Mooney we wish to state the following:
At no time did either of us portray to speak on behalf of INLA We
are not members of INLA. At no time did we infer that INLA were
involved in a dispute with criminals in Dublin
The reporter John Mooney called to Declan Duffy's home and asked him
if it were true that he had been informed by Gardai that his life
was
under serious threat, Declan replied that it was. Declan gave a no
comment to a series of questions that Mooney put to him and closed
the door.
Eddie Mc Garrigle was telephoned by John Mooney on two occasions.
Eddie confirmed to Mooney that there was always a level of tension
between republicans and drug gangs in the Dublin area and that this
was nothing new, however this has not resulted in violence. Eddie
stated his belief that in no way would he believe that INLA would
resort to throwing hand grenades in Dublin, He reminded him that it
is public knowledge that drug gangs are currently involved in
disputes with each other and that this has seen many gangland
murders and grenade and pipe bomb attacks. Eddie pointed out that
whilst the Gardai were briefing journalists telling them INLA were
involved that in reality they knew this was a falsehood and that the
person arrested by them has no link whatsoever with the RSM. Eddie
also stated that he had been in many delegations to the Irish
Government over the years and that no-one from the Government had
raised any concerns about the INLA cease-fire, on the contrary
Bertie Ahern has publicly praised the leadership shown by the RSM.
Signed
Eddie Mc Garrigle
Declan Duffy
IRSP Ard Comhairle statement 20/6/07
The IRSP Ard Comhairle condemn the activities of Gardai special
branch in the Waterford area following the arrest and charging under
section thirty of two local IRSP members James Butler and John
O’Donoghue.
The IRSP views these arrests as a crude attempt to disrupt and
hinder the continuing development of the IRSP in the twenty-six
counties.
Ard Comhairle member Pól Little stated that the latest events
highlighted the draconian nature of the southern criminal justice
system.
“This is clearly an attack on the IRSP as well as radical political
agitation within the 26 Counties.
Today we have two individuals who face substantial prison terms on
the word of a single Gardai officer, all because of their political
orientation.”
“It is clear that Section 30 must be scrapped and we will be
flagging this plight of the two individuals with all appropriate
Human Rights bodies.”
Statement Ends
Irish Republican Socialist Party
PSNI helicopter activity
Following recent low flying helicopter activity in the Andersonstown
area of west Belfast the Irish Republican Socialist Party has
issued a statement challenging the PSNI over their use of this crude
method of surveillance.
Gerard Foster said "Low flying helicopters are renowned for the
structural damage they cause to property and in rural areas they
have been known to cause of the death of livestock. They have been
used by British army soldiers to intimidate the community in the
past. We would then pose the question as to why a PSNI helicopter
would constantly circle a residential area at low altitude for any
length of time."
Mr. Foster continued "It's the view of the IRSP that British army
helicopters have been replaced with PSNI helicopters to further
implement the British policy of normalising their rule in Ireland."
Mr. Foster concluded by saying "Certainly if the arguments that we
have entered a new policing dispensation are to have any credit,
the PSNI mustn't pick up were the British army left off."
Friday 6 July, 2007. Statement ends.
The case of Róisín McAliskey
Róisín McAliskey is a 35 year old mother of two children aged ten
and two. She is the daughter of Civil Rights activist and former MP
Bernadette McAliskey. Róisín has been involved in community
development work for nearly 20 years. She currently works with
vulnerable young adults and survivors of trauma and conflict.
Róisín was arrested in 1996 in relation to a mortar bomb attack
carried out by the Irish Republican Army on a British Army base in
Osnabruck, Germany. There is substantial evidence that Róisín was at
home in Ireland at the time of the attack. Within a few months of
the attack a principal prosecution witness was unable to identify
her from a recent photograph. There was also controversy over
evidence gathered by German authorities.
Despite this Róisín was flown to London and detained for over a year
but was never charged with any offence. Although pregnant at the
time of her arrest in 1996 Róisín was categorised as a Category A
prisoner and held in Holloway Women’s Prison, before being
transferred to the high security all male prison at Belmarsh.
The detention of Róisín McAliskey was recognised by Amnesty
International as “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment”
For Amnesty's Report on the detention of Róisín please click on link
below:-
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR450081997?open&of=ENG-2U3
<http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR450081997?open&of=ENG-2U3>
In 1998 the then British Home Secretary Jack Straw refused the
extradition of Róisín on the grounds that it would be “unjust and
oppressive” and Róisín returned home to Ireland.
Subsequently in July 2000 the Solicitor General reported to the
British House of Commons as follows:
Mr Goggins: To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement
concerning the possible prosecution of Róisín McAliskey.
The Solicitor-General: Further to the statement of the Home
Secretary on 10 March 1998, Offical Report, column 133W, that he
would not order the extradition of Róisín McAliskey to Germany, the
Crown Prosecution Service, in accordance with this this country’s
obligations under Article 7 of the European Convention on the
Suppression of Terrorism, has considered whether to prosecute Róisín
McAliskey in this country for the offences allegedly committed in
Germany in relation to the Osnabruck bombing of 28 June 1996.
The test applied by the Crown Prosecution Service is the test set
out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors that applies to all
prosecution will be commenced or proceeded with only if there is
sufficient evidence to afford a realistic prospect of conviction and
that prosecution is in the public interest.
The Crown Prosecution Service, having taken the advice of Senior
Treasury Counsel, has concluded that there is not a realistic
prospect of convicting Miss McAliskey for any offence arising out of
the Osnabruck bombing. It has reached that conclusion having taken
into account the available evidence and the likely result of any
argument that may be put forward by Miss McAliskey that to prosecute
her now would be an abuse of process.
The Law Officers have been consulted and we agree with the
conclusion reached by the Crown Prosectution Service.
“It is not usual for the Law Officers to make announcements
concerning consideration of individual cases. In this instance, the
Home Secretary, in a written reply, 20 March 1998, Offical report,
column 742W, said that this matter would be considered for
prosecution in the United Kingdom. It is right that the House should
be informed of the outcome of those considerations.”
On 21 May 2007 officers from PSNI, C.I.D and European Mutual
Assistance Unit sealed off access to the Cul-de-Sac where Róisín
lives with her two young children, and arrested her at 8.12am.
Róisín was handed a copy of a “European Arrest Warrant” issued by Dr
Diemer, the Prosecutor General at the Federal German Court of
Justice on 12 October 2006. The warrant was received by SOCA
(Serious Organised Crime Agency) on 6 November 2006.
No explanation has been given for the seven month delay.
Immediately a number of questions arise:
1. Why (given the authoritative statement by the Solicitor
General that there is no evidence which could sustain any charge)
have the Germans abused the Extradition Act (2003) to fast track
Roisin’s removal to Germany?
2. Given the “fast track” purpose of the European Extradition
Warrant, why did it “disappear” in the UK from Nov 2006 to May 2007?
3. Given its “assisted disappearance”, for what reason and by
whose authority was it acted upon in May 2007?
http://www.marxist.com/interview-alan-woods-venezuelan-revolution180607.htm
<http://www.marxist.com/interview-alan-woods-venezuelan-revolution180607.htm>
An interview with Alan Woods on the Venezuelan revolution today
By Humania del Sur
Monday, 18 June 2007
Q.John Riddell, in his review of your book “The Venezuelan
Revolution, a Marxist perspective”, wonders if a small Marxist
current like the one you lead can influence the course of events in
the world and says that at least you have the merit of going part of
the way together with the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela. How
was this possible? How did you manage it? Did they contact you? Tell
us how your first meeting with Chavez was and how the relation
between the International Marxist tendency, the government of Hugo
Chávez and the sectors that support it are developing. Do you really
believe you can influence events in Venezuela in some way?
A.History shows that a small group with clear ideas can play a
decisive role in certain historical situations, while a big mass
party with incorrect ideas can be transformed in a given moment into
a great zero. It is sufficient to recall on the one hand the
Bolshevik Party which, at the beginning of 1917 was a small minority
in Russia, and on the other hand the collapse of the Social
Democratic and Communist parties in Germany in 1933.
It is true that the Corriente Marxista Revolucionaria is as yet very
small in Venezuela, but we are very strong in ideas, and that in the
last instance is the only guarantee of success. I might add that it
was precisely the strength of our ideas that led to my first
encounter with President Chávez, who had read my book Reason in
Revolt, which he liked and which he has been so kind as to recommend
on several occasions.
As to the influence we might have in Venezuela, that depends in part
on the work of the Venezuelan Marxists, in part on the experience of
the masses. In general the masses do not learn from books but from
experience. But in a revolution the masses learn more in one week
than in a decade of normal life. Lenin used to say that for the
masses an ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory - and he was
a great theoretician.
The masses have already learnt many things in this decade of
revolution. They know how to distinguish their real friends from
their enemies (even when these wear a red shirt). We could put it
this way: although the masses may not know exactly what they want,
they know full well what they do not want. The development of
consciousness continues: the influence of the reformists is
declining and that of the most revolutionary wing, together with
that of the Marxist tendency that I have the honour of representing
is growing.
Q.You have openly expressed your admiration for President Chávez.
However, you have said that you consider that the Bolivarian
Revolution is “incomplete”. What do you mean by this?
A.The Bolivarian Revolution is a revolution in the sense that
Trotsky explained in The History of the Russian Revolution, that is,
a situation in which the masses participate actively in politics and
try to take their destiny into their own hands and change society
from the bottom. But it is unfinished because it has not yet
succeeded in expropriating totally the oligarchy and the old state
apparatus remains more or less intact. As long as things continue
like this, it cannot be said that the revolution is irreversible.
President Chávez once compared it to the myth of Sisyphus, who was
condemned to roll a heavy boulder to the top of a hill, at which
point it always rolled back to the starting-point. The problem is
that if this particular rock rolls backwards, it will crush a lot of
people.
Trotsky once said: “truth and not lies is the motor-force of
history”. What, in your opinion, is the truth of the Bolivarian
Revolution? And what are the lies? Are we in the presence of a real
transformation of Venezuelan reality, heading for socialism of the
xxi century or is it all a deception that will end in the
consolidation of a new political and economic elite that has nothing
in common with revolution or socialism?
The great truth is that in a revolution - that means also the
Bolivarian - in the end one class has to win and the other lose, and
that throughout history no ruling class has ever surrendered without
a pitiless struggle. The great lie consists in empty and
vainglorious declarations to the effect that the Bolivarian
Revolution “is irreversible” and other such stupid and irresponsible
nonsense which merely attempts to deceive the people and lull it to
sleep instead of arousing it to struggle against the danger of
counter-revolution.
As for the so-called theory of socialism of the XXI century, I think
it is an attempt to distort the ideas of President Chávez and to
divert the process towards reformism. People like Heinz Dieterich
are striving by all means to water down the revolutionary message of
the President and fill it with a completely reformist one. They are
opposed to nationalisations, they preach reconciliation between the
classes, that is, they are trying to teach the tiger to eat lettuce.
And they call this nonsense “realism”! I am writing a book against
the ideas of Dieterich and the reformists, and I hope to make clear
the difference between Marxism - the authentically revolutionary
theory - and this caricature.
Q.What other criticisms would you make of the Bolivarian Revolution,
apart from the fact that you consider it to be incomplete?
A.Some time ago Hugo Chávez asked me the same question. I replied in
the following way. Your revolution is a real source of inspiration
for millions. That is the most important thing. But it does have
some weak points, for example, the absence of a clearly defined
programme and policy, and the lack of politically educated cadres;
in other words, the lack of a revolutionary party, the lack of a
revolutionary leadership.
It is true that later there have been attempts to remedy some of
these failings. For example, the President has proclaimed the
socialist character of the Revolution - something that our Tendency
has been advocating from the very beginning. But this idea is
meeting with stubborn resistance from the reformists and Stalinists.
The battle is not yet won.
Q. What do you think of the criticisms of the Venezuelan opposition
that the President has displayed authoritarian attitudes and that
his condition as a military man does not favour the democratic rules
of play? For example, what is your opinion about his declared
intention of remaining in power for an unlimited term and his
comments about a “peaceful but not unarmed” revolution? Are
socialism and democracy incompatible?
Why should they be? Socialism is democratic or it is nothing! Of
course, when I speak of democracy I do not refer to the vulgar
caricature of bourgeois democracy - which is only another name for
the dictatorship of big Capital. What democracy exists in the USA,
where there are supposed to be two parties that, as Gore Vidal
explains very well, are really only one party representing different
wings of the bourgeoisie. In order to be President of the USA one
has to be a millionaire. What kind of a democracy is that?
The protests of the Venezuelan opposition are pure hypocrisy. They
have lost the elections and referendums, one after another. They
lost again last December when Chávez obtained the biggest majority
in the history of Venezuela. And they cannot say that this was a
fraud! These elections were the most highly scrutinized in the
history of the world! They were all out there in Caracas, searching
with a magnifying glass for even the smallest evidence of fraud. If
they had found any they would have shouted it from the rooftops. But
they did not find anything.
These elections provide a very clear mandate to the Bolivarian
government - a mandate for fundamental change in society. That is
what the masses are really demanding! Hugo Chávez must carry out the
wishes of those who voted for him, the workers and peasants, the
poor people and the youth, ignoring completely the howling of the
counterrevolutionary opposition, which is nothing but the mouthpiece
of the corrupt and reactionary oligarchy and its master in
Washington. We must take drastic and urgent measures. It is high
time to carry out the expropriation of the oligarchy!
Q. Concerning the question of the media and information in
Venezuela, ever since Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías assumed the
Presidency of the Republic in December 1998, the government has been
reducing the freedom of the press, which is defined as “the
guarantee by the government of freedom of expression for citizens
and associations, including those dedicated to the collection and
broadcasting of information” while strengthening the media owned by
the state, which are dedicated to the transmission of programmes of
an “ideological” character. Isn’t this contrary to human rights? Is
socialism against rights?
A. Come on, now! How can we speak of freedom of the media, of the
means of communication, when all these are owned by a handful of
rich men like Rupert Murdoch? The so-called freedom of expression in
Britain and the USA is a joke in very bad taste!
Of course, socialism must respect human rights. But let us start by
defending the rights of the overwhelming majority of the population
who, until now, never had any real rights or a voice to express
their opinions. What we should do is to nationalise the press, the
radio and television, but not leave these things in the hands of the
state (we do not want a totalitarian state as in the USSR) but to
guarantee access to the media to any party, social or trade union
organization according to the number of members, votes in elections,
etc. they have. Thus, the PSUV would have several daily papers and
more than one TV station, and the owners of RCTV could have a small
monthly journal like El Militante which they would be free to sell
at the bus stops... That is to say, we would give the bourgeois the
same rights they give to us, neither more nor less.
Q. What do you think of the case of Radio Caracas Televisión, a
company with more than 50 years of history, which had its licence
cancelled by the government in May?
A. As far as RCTV is concerned, everybody knows that this was a
counterrevolutionary (“golpista”) station. If I were to criticize
the President, I would say he should have acted a lot sooner against
this nest of vipers. And he should not only have closed them down
but he should have arrested the bosses and put them on trial.
Yet again, the orchestrated campaign over this issue is just plain
hypocrisy. I can assure you that if a British TV company had
attacked Blair in the same way that this lot did to Chávez,
advocating a coup and even the assassination of the head of state,
they would be in prison before their feet could touch the ground.
No! The problem here is not that we “have gone too far”, as Heinz
Dieterich and others think, but that we have been too soft. For
example, how many of the April 2002 conspirators are behind bars? As
far as I know, not one. This would not be the case in the USA, I can
assure you!
Q. Many chavistas are sceptical about the President’s appeal to form
the PSUV, because they fear that it may be an attempt to control and
silence internal dissent. What do you think about this? Is a single
party an instrument suitable for promoting a “revolution within the
revolution” which is what you support?
A. On the one hand, it is evident that the working class needs a
political party and also that the old parties that made up the MVR
were very bad, totally taken over by the bureaucracy and the
reformists. Therefore, it seems to me that the proclamation of the
PSUV could be an important step forward, but only on condition that
it is a genuinely revolutionary party, that is, a democratic and
class party, controlled by the working class rank and file and not
just another bureaucratic apparatus for the careerists and
opportunists. Here also the presence of a strong Marxist tendency is
absolutely necessary.
Q. Your book on Venezuela has been translated into various
languages, including Urdu. This has made Chávez and the Bolivarian
Revolution known in countries like India and Pakistan. Do you really
think that what is happening in Venezuela is an example for the
world? If so, why?
A. It is true that my book has been a great success because it fills
a vacuum. Unfortunately, a great part of the Left internationally
has not understood the significance of the Bolivarian Revolution,
although this situation is changing rapidly, as people begin to find
out what is going on in Venezuela. In all this a very important role
has been played, and is still being played, by our international
campaign Hands off Venezuela.
Why is the Venezuelan revolution important for the rest of the
world? Well, in the first place, all this should not be happening!
After the fall of the USSR the bourgeoisie succumbed to a mood of
euphoria. They spoke of the end of socialism, the end of communism,
of revolution, even the end of history. Now Venezuela has turned all
these delusions on their head! The Bolivarian Revolution is like an
echo of those famous last words of Galileo: “Eppur si muove!” (And
yet, it moves!).
In the last period capitalism has demonstrated that it is incapable
of satisfying the most basic necessities of the masses. On all sides
we see more hunger, more diseases, more misery, more wars. But there
is also an increasing reaction by the people. Classical physics
says: every action produces an equal and opposite reaction. That is
also true in politics! The mass movement increasingly tends to
question the capitalist system - even in the USA. And Venezuela
offers a point of reference for these movements. That is why the
imperialists are hell-bent on destroying the Bolivarian Revolution
at all costs, because it gives an example to millions of exploited
and oppressed people in America and further afield.
In Venezuela there is a class struggle that has an increasingly
sharp and ferocious character. We still do not know how it will end.
But we do know on what side of the barricades we are! With the
workers and peasants and against the bourgeois, bankers and
landowners! With the revolutionary youth and the vanguard that wants
to carry the revolution forward, striking hard blows against the
counter-revolutionaries, and against the timid reformists and
cowardly and treacherous bureaucrats!
If anyone had any doubt about whether we should support the
Bolivarian Revolution, it is only necessary to see the attitude of
US imperialism, which does not conceal its plans to overthrow Chávez
and is backing the counter-revolution. This detail is sufficient to
convince anyone of the necessity to rally to the defence of the
Bolivarian Revolution. But in order to defend it seriously, it is
absolutely necessary to go further, liquidating the economic power
of the oligarchy. It is not sufficient to talk about socialism; it
is necessary to make it a reality! And this can only be done when
the working class takes power into its hands.
Once the working class takes power into its hands, the Bolivarian
Revolution will lose its ambiguous and indecisive character and will
acquire an irresistible strength, passing beyond the narrow national
frontiers and transforming itself rapidly into a continental
revolutionary movement. The conditions are more than ripe for this!
Today there is not a single stable bourgeois regime in all Latin
America - from Tierra del Fuego to the Rio Grande. The great vision
of the Libertador, Simon Bolivar, of the revolutionary unification
of Latin America, would be feasible for the first time. But it would
only be possible in a Socialist Federation of Latin America, which
in turn would be the first step towards world socialism.
London, 6 June, 2007
[Note: to be published shortly in Revista Humania del Sur, Revista
de
Estudios Latinoamericanos Africanos y Asiáticos de la Facultad de
Humanidades y Educación de la Universidad de Los Andes, Mérida -
Venezuela, http://www.saber.ula.ve/humaniadelsur/
<http://www.saber.ula.ve/humaniadelsur/> ]
FROM THE MEDIA
The fire this time
The government has been ineffectual in closing the country's vast
poverty gap
Sara Mampane has been waiting for the African National Congress to
fulfil its promise of a new home - what she calls a "proper house",
where the only corrugated iron is on the roof and the walls are made
of brick - since the party came to power with the collapse of
apartheid 13 years ago.
The 43-year-old mother of three watched from her rickety two-room
shack with no electricity in a squatter camp on the edge of Mamelodi
township as others moved to one of the new box houses built by the
government. She was content to wait her turn and be grateful for
what did arrive, principally access to clean water and a health
clinic for her children. But her patience snapped last month when
men in red boiler suits came to demolish her home.
The feared "red ants" descended on the camp to remove the thousands
of illegally built corrugated iron shacks that have spread out from
the edge of the township in recent years. The residents were so
incensed that they stoned one of the men to death and injured
others, and set fire to four trucks.
"They promised me a house but they say wait, wait, wait," said Ms
Mampane. "So I am waiting. But it is not right to come and knock
down the house I have before they build me a new one. This is what
we expected from apartheid, not from our own government. I think
they have forgotten us."
Weeks of on and off rioting in Mamelodi over the demolitions and
lack of services have rekindled memories of the township as a hotbed
of protest against the apartheid regime two decades ago. Last week
hundreds of angry protesters threw up barricades and burned tyres in
clashes with police. Last month the residents set fire to local
council offices.
The disturbances are not limited to Mamelodi. Hundreds of similar
protests have spread across South Africa, fuelled by anger at the
slow pace of change.
Thirteen years after the end of apartheid, the poverty gap in South
Africa remains among the largest in the world - second only to
Brazil by some measurements. More than 40% of South Africans live on
less than eight rand (59p) a day. More than one third of the
working-age population is unemployed.
But it is the evident wealth of others, mostly white but including a
small newly enriched black elite, that has contributed to bitter
divisions within the ANC over the government's economic strategy.
The issue is expected to dominate a party conference this week.
Time bomb
Some in the ANC are warning that the wealth gap is a time bomb for
the country and the party, which is losing touch with the mass of
its voters and "betraying the national democratic revolution" with
too much focus on creating a liberal business climate.
Trade unions are leading the attack on economic priorities they say
have principally benefited the emerging black elite, and the old
white one, at the expense of the poor. "It's like a doctor saying an
operation has been successful when the patient is dead," Zwelinzima
Vavi, secretary general of the Congress of South African Trade
Unions, a partner in the ruling alliance with the ANC, told a rally
in the Free State this month.
Few deny that the ANC has taken significant strides toward reducing
poverty. According to figures released last week, the government has
built more than 2m new homes since 1994, although the numbers of
people living in squatter camps has risen by half over the same
period.
About 85% of households have access to fresh water, up from 61% when
the ANC came to power. More than 71% have inside toilets attached to
the sewage system, up from about 50%. More than 4m homes have been
connected to mains electricity over the same period, although the
price of power has quadrupled and many people have been cut off
because they cannot pay the bills.
South Africa's minister of provincial and local government, Sydney
Mufamadi, has said the protests reflect the government's successes.
"As we make progress in some municipalities, the residents in other
municipalities become impatient: they expect their public
representatives to deliver in the same way as progress is made in
other municipalities," he told a UN news agency.
Unshared growth
The government's latest strategy, the accelerated and shared growth
initiative, seeks to halve poverty and unemployment by 2014 by
continuing the significant economic growth of recent years and
creating millions of new jobs.
Charles Meth, a respected researcher on poverty at Cape Town
university, says the government is working on "over-optimistic"
predictions, and that though economic growth is crucial it will take
decades to eradicate endemic poverty. "The treasury is driving an
agenda that says growth is going to rescue us," he says. "It's
nonsense.
"Within the state there's a huge amount of tension over poverty
policy. On the one hand you've got the minister of social
development, Zola Skweyiya, very sensibly saying this is not going
to be enough and we have to have some kind of basic grant for those
people who are going to be left out by these anti-poverty policies
and growth policies that you're looking at. The cabinet rounds on
him and says 'bollocks'."
The government concedes that though poverty has decreased since
2000, the gap between rich and poor has not narrowed.
The poor can see it only too well. Where the fault line between the
haves and the have nots once ran almost exclusively along racial
lines, the ANC's policy of black economic empowerment has created a
new class of super-rich blacks driving the most expensive cars and
living in mansions with servants and swimming pools. Many of the new
elite have links to the ruling party.
The policy's defenders say that it is forcing a shift in economic
power to the black majority that will trickle down to the poor. Some
of its critics say that all too often blacks have merely become the
public face of white interests.
Smuts Ngonyama, a former spokesman for President Thabo Mbeki asked
to explain why he received shares in a private company while working
for the government, said he did not join the struggle against
apartheid to remain poor. Tokyo Sexwale, one of the few ANC leaders
to have declared he is running to succeed Mr Mbeki, has also been
forced to defend his extraordinary accumulation of wealth.
The unions and ANC left have an uphill struggle to change the policy
at this week's party conference. The leadership wants an endorsement
of a document that Johannesburg's Centre for Policy Studies has
described as so "bland, uncritical and vague" that it leaves the
impression that the ANC "just doesn't care for the poor and socially
marginalised groups".
But Max Sisulu, one of the party's economic policy strategists, says
the ANC is not disturbed by the criticism.
"We are not worried about differences. We welcome them," he says.
"We can only benefit from differences."
BEE bumbling: The rise of the new elite
The Black Economic Empowerment affirmative action policy to break
the white stranglehold on the economy is either the fast track to
addressing past wrongs or another get-rich-quick scheme in a country
where a greed-is-good culture pervades.
BEE's supporters say the shift in political power after apartheid is
compromised by continued white control of the economy. Companies
with a significant black stake control just 5% of the Johannesburg
stock exchange. Empowerment laws require larger white-owned
businesses to sell a 25% stake to black partners.
But BEE is also seen as just jobs for some of the ANC boys (and
girls). Critics say the policy has encouraged black people to set up
companies that serve no other purpose than to help white-owned firms
meet their obligations. There have been a number of scandals,
perhaps most notably that involving the woman known as the "Queen of
BEE", Danisa Baloyi, who had to resign from more than a dozen
company boards after two people were arrested on fraud allegations
at one of the companies
Chris McGreal in Mamelodi Tuesday June 26, 2007 The Guardian
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/ <http://www.guardian.co.uk/>
|
